Comment on Natterson (2003).

Abstract

The author views J. M. Natterson's (2003) article as a return to Freud's emphasis on the centrality of love in psychoanalysis freshly conceptualized within a contemporary intersubjective perspective. Natterson's definition of love is viewed by the author as consisting of 3 independent components (attachment, recognition, and mutuality) that may harmonize or conflict. The author notes the rarity of Natterson's intimate disclosure of the specifics of his own subjectivity to the reader, and their value in advancing the understanding of psychoanalytic process and theory.A review of the literature in psychoanalysis might suggest analysts are more comfortable dealing with depression, anxiety, hate, rage, and envy than with love. Looking a bit further, one might conclude analysts are even less comfortable writing about their own intimate thoughts and feelings during the analytic encounter. Even authors in the contemporary psychoanalytic literature-with its increased emphasis on relational and intersubjective perspectives-often extol the vital role of the analyst's personality in shaping the analytic encounter in theory, but rarely if ever do they include any specifics regarding their own actual role in what took place.It would seem that the relative neglect of these topics by psychoanalysts cannot be attributed to its founder. Not only did Freud (1974, pp. 12-13) assert that psychoanalysis was "a cure through love," he outlined the importance of psychoanalytic treatment in restoring the patient's capacity to love in declaring the signposts of healthy adaptation as the capacity to "love and work." Freud eventually came to view all forms of anxiety (including castration anxiety) as variants of fears of loss of love, or loss of the loved one. Freud also explicated the ways in which both patient and analyst can impede or destroy analytic progress with concretized demands for erotic love.On the topic of self-disclosure, Freud (1900/1953) set the pace with his public selfanalysis in the dream of Irma's injection. To illustrate his method of dream interpretation, Freud disclosed numerous (and largely unflattering) details about his own personal psychology. This could not have been easy for Freud given his marginal status at that point in time, his fear of "indiscretion" on the part of his readers, and his concern that others

Reply to Bauer (2003) and Fisher (2003).

“…There is also a response to the question of the philosophical basis for the basic role of love in therapy. Bauer (2003) andFisher (2003) offer thoughtful and complex discussions on my article (Natterson, 2003) that deserve extensive elaboration. I will restrict myself to consideration of a few of their many salient points.Bauer suggests that attachment, recognition, and mutuality may profitably be conceptually separated.…”

“…It is important to attempt to distinguish early in therapy between patients without conscious desire who will actualize desire readily and those for whom a much more arduous task lies ahead. Bauer (2003) provides a valuable emphasis, as follows: "Keeping the love theme at center stage was not a denial of the role of hostility or sexuality. In fact, the reintegration of her hostile and erotic impulses seemed key to her emergent capacities of self " (p. 526).…”

“…The author acknowledges the sophisticated understanding of his article (J. M. Natterson, 2003) on the part of both W. D. Bauer (2003) and D.…”

“…Bauer (2003) and Fisher (2003) offer thoughtful and complex discussions on my article (Natterson, 2003) that deserve extensive elaboration. I will restrict myself to consideration of a few of their many salient points.…”

“…Bauer (2003) provides a valuable emphasis, as follows: “Keeping the love theme at center stage was not a denial of the role of hostility or sexuality. In fact, the reintegration of her hostile and erotic impulses seemed key to her emergent capacities of self” (p. 526).…”